deer density

[LandDr]

Hockey...there are a lot of things that have changed over the years with regards to landuse. In the past there were a lot more small farmers who farmed small fields throughout the ag land and forests. Most of those small farmers are gone and along with crop prices have resulted in a lot more hay fields, meadows, etc. Mass enrollment of conservation programs have also isolated a lot of excellent cover from food sources. There once was a lot more cover associated with food, and those higher carrying capacities supported other lower lands due to population spill-overs.

When you look at the land you hunt on, think about where the closest food source is...and I mean adequate food source, not just a little 1 or 2 acre food plot within 160 acres.

In my philosophies, if you want to have a descent deer or pheasant population, you should have 10% food for every 40 acres. If you want to have even maximum carrying capacities, you should have around 20-25% or even up to 30% food, along with 1\3 thermal cover and 1\3 prairie or grass land...this is my "Management by Thirds" concept. Within this landuse design, you will have maximum carrying capacities for deer and pheasants. I developed this from a book called "Ringnecked Pheasants of Iowa" which studied the change in land use and the change in pheasant populations. Even though it is a pheasant study...it is absolutely incredible for deer!

Based on this research and my philosophies, almost all public land is at an extreme low for carrying capacity and completely at the mercy of Mother Nature. A lot of private land is in the same condition. However, if you ever see a property with really good deer and pheasants...look at its land use...I bet it's pretty close to Management by Thirds.

Land use has changed and I don't think it is going back. So...the only way to address it is to make it happen...implement the design and make it happen.

[smsmith]

Calling the DNR or groups and asking the tough questions usually ends up in political statements and lip service. Get the media involved...Dennis Anderson, Outdoor News, Outdoors Weekly, etc. Email and media to the legislators also. It's A LOT of work...but that is about the only way change will happen. Otherwise they will just keep doing what they are doing.

Wayyyyyy ahead of you

[hockeybc69]

Brooks is already asking the tough questions outside the DNR

http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_24...erd-populations

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/240206421.html

[smsmith]

Brooks is already asking the tough questions outside the DNR

http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_24...erd-populations

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/240206421.html

Not to mention a few articles in MN ODN and being closely working with Sen. Dave Brown (note that name on the maps...the DNR wouldn't give public information to the "public" until Sen. Brown got involved).

I'll throw some kudos out to Representatives Kresha and Newberger and Senator Gazelka as well. All those folks are involved. Senator Gazelka has requested a town hall meeting in Morrison County.

[hockeybc69]

Landdr

Here is what we have accomplished on our land.

We have done extensive work on the property over the last 10 years to improve the land.

- Old stand aspen harvest

- Buckthorn removal

- Planted over 10,000 conifers

- 14 acres CRP

- 3 acres of NWSG

- 6 acres of food plots(corn, beans, clover)

- Hingecutting core bedding areas

- Retired 25 acres of wetlands in Wetland Easement Program

- Wetland restoration through USFWS

This year we went one step further to try and attract and hold a deer or two. We took 40 acres of our land and made it a sanctuary. We did not enter that 40 acre oak stand all summer or fall. A very tough decision for us since we only own 120 acres, but nothing we have done has improved our deer hunting experience for years. We saw no more deer this year with our sanctuary than any other year.

I am running out of ideas on what to do.... Not giving up though.

[LandDr]

Excellent!

I have not read all of the articles, but I am hearing a lot about anterless tags and harvest tags in general.

Question...if the management of public land was changed to increase the carrying capacity of the land, which resulted in 3X or 5X as many deer, would there be as many issues or concerns with current permits and harvest allocations? This also means increasing the carrying capacity so there is a healthy deer heard within no or minimal habitat destruction.

Thanks

[LandDr]

Hockey

I would like to discuss this further, but I think we should take it off this thread so it doesn't keep posting for everyone. Then we can come back after the discussion and maybe give my thoughts on it. email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss some more...I have a few questions for you.

Thanks

[smsmith]

email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss some more...I have a few questions for you.

Small world, I communicated with you or someone else at Habitat Now earlier this winter/late fall about green globe turnips.

[SmellEsox]

Can anyone find any information on habitat loss or destruction due to too many deer in the past at any point in the last several years?

I have googled and cannot find anything, even back in the 2003 era when harvests were at record levels and population estimates were high.

I don't disagree that habitat improvement is a great idea. But why is habitat improvement over what we have today required to bump up populations in areas that are being managed so low now?

Agree. Current habitat wouldn't need to be touched and it could easily support double the deer we have now in ag country in a sustainable way.

[SmellEsox]

Excellent!

I have not read all of the articles, but I am hearing a lot about anterless tags and harvest tags in general.

Question...if the management of public land was changed to increase the carrying capacity of the land, which resulted in 3X or 5X as many deer, would there be as many issues or concerns with current permits and harvest allocations? This also means increasing the carrying capacity so there is a healthy deer heard within no or minimal habitat destruction.

Thanks

I don't think it would do anything to increase the number of deer. They'd still be getting shot. In fact, it would make it easier to shoot the few deer that are left. All we need to do is back off doe harvest and we'd be good. People wouldn't be complaining about a lack of deer.

[LandDr]

SmellEsox...the question was more geared towards "public" land and to people that hunt public land.

Regarding private land in ag country however, a lot of ag country is one really bad snow storm away from really impacting our pheasant and deer population...and we are not even into the weather that February brings. More deer means more mouths to feed...and many feel the wildlife are already under severe stress.

I have thick stands of spruce I planted back in 1995 with around 54 acres of food plots in and around the winter cover. But this type of set up is not found consistently through the landscape.

In ag country around here, each hunter can take one deer, or across the hwy they can take two. Harvest limits won't allow all the deer to get shot. I usually see exponential population growth with pheasants and deer with implementation of a good design up to the carrying capacity of that design. With this design...trust me, it is not easy to hunt these deer!

[SmellEsox]

It would be nice if DNR would increase deer management on public lands. They do plant food plots on some large WMA's (ie. Mille Lacs WMA). Still, deer numbers on public land are determined by harvest not carrying capacity. Deer are kept far below carrying capacity in most of the state by the issuance of doe permits. Especially in the transition area of the state where the current habitat can hold far more deer than what is managed for. There would be no need for improvement of habitat in most of the transition zone. Raising the CC would do nothing without reducing antlerless harvest.

[lichen fox]

I really haven't had a lot of time yet to go over all the numbers, but it "looks like"...the over all goal for the state is 1 adult deer per hunter per permit area..."on average"...I don't disagree with that, as the success ratio varies from 20 - 40% throughout the state...so, that tells me that to keep "everybody" (hunters, ins. companies, anti-hunters, forestry, farmers, wolves, etc.), happy, happy, happy....they are realistic goals...the goal being to have about half a million adult deer in MN for the hunters that purchase license and the rest are for cars to hit, and wolves to eat!

[PurpleFloyd]

SmellEsox...the question was more geared towards "public" land and to people that hunt public land.

Regarding private land in ag country however, a lot of ag country is one really bad snow storm away from really impacting our pheasant and deer population...and we are not even into the weather that February brings. More deer means more mouths to feed...and many feel the wildlife are already under severe stress.

I have thick stands of spruce I planted back in 1995 with around 54 acres of food plots in and around the winter cover. But this type of set up is not found consistently through the landscape.

In ag country around here, each hunter can take one deer, or across the hwy they can take two. Harvest limits won't allow all the deer to get shot. I usually see exponential population growth with pheasants and deer with implementation of a good design up to the carrying capacity of that design. With this design...trust me, it is not easy to hunt these deer!

Very well thought out,sensible posts. Thanks for contributing and I agree with what you are saying.

[Jameson]

Can anyone find any information on habitat loss or destruction due to too many deer in the past at any point in the last several years?...

MN Arboretum last winter, there is some shotgun hunting near it and they allowed some bow hunting there:

http://www.weeklynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=10&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=11672

Would think the metro bow hunters group probably has many news articles available about deer eating METRO habitat.

As far as outstate, in our State Forests or something, I don't recall any.

[jtoast]

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2008/02/deer-herds-devouring-forest-seedlings-urban-hostas

Here is a decent article. Enjoying the discussion...

[smallie_hawgin]

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2008/02/deer-herds-devouring-forest-seedlings-urban-hostas

Here is a decent article. Enjoying the discussion...

Note the article was based on data from 2006, 07 and 08.... Not 2012, 2013. Rare cases from what I've read.

[UNDBowhunter]

Just saw this on facebook.... What do you guys think about last spring's pre-fawn #'s compared to what you saw this past fall?

[smsmith]

Just saw this on facebook.... What do you guys think about last spring's pre-fawn #'s compared to what you saw this past fall?

I'd guess in my part of the unit I'd say they were a bit optimistic. That possibility was confirmed for me when I spoke with Marrett.

I'd say my post fawn densities would have been in the upper range of what the DNR said the pre-fawn were (i.e. about 12)

[Jameson]

The area that I hunted the most I would say they have the fall density nailed on that spring density map 13-16 dpsm. With the very late spring we had, the recruitment wasn't great and the spring density didn't change much to the pre-hunt density IMO. Another area that I am very familiar with they say is in the 5-8 range, and I would put in the 1-4 range.

[SmellEsox]

Yeah, just switch pre- to post- and I think it is accurate.

[Jameson]

Quote:

Yeah, just switch pre- to post- and I think it is accurate.

....then take in to account that the DNR believes that each doe recruits 1.9 fawns per year....and that in the spring we have many more does then bucks...so that their models show a spring 15 dpsm area in the spring transforming into a 34 dpsm area in the fall. 10 does and 5 bucks in the spring with each doe having 1.9 fawns makes a fall density of 34 dpsm. My hunch is the permits allocated should be a bit different when we have 34 fall dpsm compared to 15 dpsm.